Otter.a is a technological company based in Mountain View, California, which uses artificial intelligence to generate text -to -text transcriptions. It has become a popular tool to transcribe virtual office meetings.
Source: Otter
hide
tilting legend
Source: Otter
A federal trial in search of a status of collective appeal accuses Otter.a of “deceively and surreptitiously” of the private conversations that the technology company uses to form its popular transcription service without the authorization of people who use it.
The transcription service fed by the company of the company called Otter Notebook, which can make real -time transcription meetings of Zoom, Google Meet and Microsoft Teams, does not by default the participants in recording and fail to alert participants that the recordings are shared with the otter to improve its artificial intelligence systems, according to the participants the costume Classified on Friday.
The applicant of the pursuit is a man named Justin Brewer from San Jacinto, California, who alleges that private life was “severely invaded” by realizing that Otter secretly recorded a confidential conversation.
The prosecution, filed before the American district court of the Northern District of California, affirms that the secret registration of Otter violates the laws on privacy and federal and federal life. He seeks to represent other people in California who have had discussions without knowing it shared with Otter, which lawyers claim that Otter does to “get a financial gain”.
Neither the Brewer legal team nor the spokesperson for Otter returned requests for comments.
In recent months, new confidentiality issues have obstinate the otter because they are increasingly deployed in workplaces around the world.
Some 25 million people now use its AI transcription tools, which have recorded and processed more than a billion meetings since the company foundation in 2016, the company said.
Users have shared horror stories on platforms such as X and Reddit on Otter’s automated recording tools.
Last year, an AI researcher and engineer said Otter had recorded a zoom meeting with investors, then shared with him a cat transcription, including “intimate and confidential details” on a company discussed after leaving the meeting. These parts of the conversation ended up killing an agreement, The Washington Post reported.
The Chinese Politico correspondent has written Interviews a Uighur human rights activist using OTTER and realize that the company shares user data with third parties, which makes it fear that the Chinese government can try to access raw transcriptions of conversations with dissidents. Otter said he did not share any data with foreign governments or law enforcement agencies.
On Reddit, users complain About OTTER Seaching RENTURES automatically when the service is linked to work calendars and to recording cats without consent.
It is also a phenomenon highlighted by the trial. If someone has an Otter account and joins a virtual meeting, the software will generally ask the host of Reunion the permission to record, but it does not ask all other participants by default.
“In fact, if the host of Reunion is an Otter accountant, who joined his accounts of Google Meet, Zoom or Microsoft teams relevant with Otter, an Otter Notteaker can join the meeting without obtaining the affirmative consent of any participant in the meeting, including the host”, according to the trial. “What Otter has done was to use his meeting assistant Otter Nottaker to record, transcribe and use the content of conversations without the informed consent of class members.”
Otter complaints that before the audio of meetings, its automatic learning systems to help improve an AI voice recognition function, it is “disidentility”, a method by which the data can be anonymized.
However, the prosecution filed on Friday raises concerns concerning Otter’s ability to do so effectively, claiming that the company does not provide any public explanation for its “unit” process.
“On information and beliefs, Otter’s disidentification process does not delete confidential information or the guarantee of the anonymity of speakers,” said the trial.
